Dalrock has a lot of chutzpah. His recent post “Hurting Women” opines “Men are failing women terribly by refusing to speak the truth about bad behavior of women. Calling out bad behavior of women is difficult and feels uncomfortable, and men are taking the easy feel good path. This hurts the very women men are refusing to speak the truth about.” Dalrock furthermore presents his attacks against women, his relentless never ending attacks again women I will add, as “protecting” women. Dalrock queries the women in his audience asking “Which way did my criticism of the unrepentant adulteress strike you? Did you feel that I was attacking you or being unkind when I called the unrepentant adulteress out, or did you perceive the adulteress as the threat and my calling her out as protection? Which side did you identify with?”
I must confess. Placing myself hypothetically in the position of a woman seeking Dalrock’s approval, being reprimanded by Dalrock for my supposed sins, seeking his forgiveness and me “repenting” for whatever it is Dalrock claims that I did wrong; the whole idea gives me the creeps. Again placing myself in the position of being a woman Dalrock does not seem like a safe man to submit to or a trustworthy source regarding whether I am behaving properly as a woman or not.
Dalrock is using a kind of manipulative sinister argument technique here where he frames any woman suspicious of his prior post where he focused on bashing a woman for her infidelity against her dying cancer stricken husband in a marriage the unfaithful woman describes as a “loveless, sexless, parenting marriage” as being motivated by her identifying with the adulterous unfaithful wife. In other words as Dalrock frames it only a morally corrupt woman would criticize him or be suspicious of him because of his relentless woman bashing.
Dalrock then poses a question to men that I as a man will answer. Dalrock continues “Likewise, I would ask the men reading how they perceived my criticism of the unrepentant adulteress. Did you perceive it as an attack against women, or protection of women?”
I saw Dalrock’s prior post that he is referring to here “Why won’t he hurry up and die already?” as definitely an attack against women. The post alternatively being perceived as protecting women? I don’t see how the post could be characterized as protecting women. The whole idea that attacking women even for bad sinful acts constitutes protecting women seems rather strange to me. When you attack women for the bad they do you are primarily protecting those the women are victimizing, not protecting the woman herself. Actual protection of women is something Dalrock never seems to come close to in his writings at his blog.
Dalrock writes in the “Why won’t he hurry up and die already?” post “This woman is so self centered she can’t see her own wickedness; Greenwald fails her* by taking the easy path of coddling her and encouraging her to see herself as the victim. Greenwald gets to feel good for protecting a woman, even though he is in reality only harming her.” So I suppose Dalrock’s idea is that he is “protecting women” by being a moral guardian of women; by pointing out forcefully the woman’s own “wickedness” so that the woman can better see the error of her ways and repent and become a better woman. Funny how one of Dalrock’s specialties is blasting Christian pastors who tell men to “man up” and shove men’s shortcomings in their face precisely with the intention that this will help the men to see the errors of their ways and thereby become better men. Dalrock characterizes this as “Fragging Christian Headship” and shaming and undermining men in front of their wives and children when this kind of tough love approach is directed at men.
The problem is not in particular with what Dalrock said in his prior “Why won’t he hurry up and die already?” post. What he said in that post is at least reasonable and defensible even if a bit on the harsh side (aside from the gratuitous slam against Christian men that he threw in at the end; Dalrock making sure to attack Christian men at every opportunity that he can). The problem is that the post fits a very rigid pattern of always attacking women and never ever criticizing men except when men fail to criticize women strongly enough or when men criticize other men for their shortcomings as men. It is Dalrock’s bias against women and his seeming never ending thirst for another tale of the bad sinful woman that he can dig up to exploit for yet more “justified” woman bashing that is the problem.
Dalrock is a male narcissist and a male supremacist; that is the real underlying issue and the real underlying theme of Dalrock’s blog. The entire manosphere is at its core male narcissism and male supremacy and Dalrock doesn’t even deny that he is part of the manosphere so really Dalrock does not even deny his male narcissism and his male supremacist orientation considering that that is what the manosphere that he acknowledges that he is a part of is.
Dalrock makes a big deal about being a Christian and quotes from the Bible a lot and endlessly bashes “modern Christians” as he puts it and constantly claims that the Christian Complementarians are really feminists at their core and are desperately pandering to women. There is one thing I would like to say about this. Christianity is not male narcissism and it is not male supremacist (contrary to what the feminists, the real feminists, would have you believe). Real Christians and real Christian pastors and real Christian churches will never satisfy Dalrock precisely because real Christianity does not pander to Dalrock’s oversized insatiable male ego. Christianity does not teach male superiority and this is the part of Christianity that Dalrock can not stand and therefore ignores and derides and rubbishes. Dalrock tries to pawn himself off as some kind of authority regarding what “true Christianity” teaches claiming that all the actual pastors in actual real churches are phonies under the control of feminism pandering to women and the broader feminist culture etc. etc. etc. when in reality Dalrock is the one doing all the pandering to his fellow manosphereins in his fan base and his reader base always pointing out the sins of women and the great injustice of ever pointing out or noticing shortcomings or failures in a man.
I will admit. I did have a tendency to like and admire what Dalrock had to say in the early part of becoming familiar with his blog. Yes he was obviously “male friendly” and a bit like an MRA (Men’s Rights Activist) in how I perceived him right from the very beginning but I did like what I perceived to be his attacks against “stealth feminism” sneakily trying to worm its way into the Christian Church. I saw Dalrock as primarily a defender of traditional Christianity against sneaky feminist invaders even if there was a whiff of unsavory male narcissism in how he approached things. He was part of the greater MRA phenomenon after all. I saw the success of Dalrock as indicating that Christianity was invading the “men’s rights” sphere and that this was good as it indicated Christianity growing and “taking over” MRA land.
After Dalrock took to frontally attacking Mark Driscoll my view of Dalrock dimmed because I saw him deliberately attacking complementarian big name Christian leaders simply because of their “man up” sermons to their congregations. This showed that Dalrock was not focused on fighting against feminist infiltrators in Christianity; instead he was attacking male responsibility and male duty as preached by Christian Complementarians that I respected.
My view of Dalrock worsened further after I actually decided to read and watch videos from the sources that Dalrock cited as evidence of feminism within Christianity and supposed hostility against men and attacks against male authority, etc. What I found was that pretty much without fail what the original Christian source said made good sense to me and didn’t really seem to support Dalrock’s negative interpretation at all. This made it seem like Dalrock’s attacks against Christianity were pretty much invented out of whole cloth and were just expressions of his bias and his inclination to see any criticism of men or even suggestions to men of ways they can do better as bashing men and undermining male authority and pandering to women and feminist.
Lastly and just recently I have begun to notice that Dalrock really is relentlessly and harshly critical of women, never critical of men, often attributes to women negative characteristics often echoed in the “red pill” community, is eager to highlight women’s vulnerabilities, and that Dalrock doesn’t seem to think of men as having any actual responsibilities or duties towards women while at the same time seeming to demand a rather extreme level of authority simply on the basis of being a man (without an attendant obligation on the man’s part to first be in submission to God before claiming authority over a woman).
All of this is making me see Dalrock as really just being pretty much 100% a male narcissist and a male supremacist just dressed in Christian clothing to make himself look good. Dalrock is not trying to protect Christianity from feminist infiltration; instead Dalrock is an infiltrator himself trying to corrupt Christianity with his male narcissist male supremacist agenda. Dalrock does not represent Christianity invading and taking over the manosphere; instead Dalrock represents the manosphere invading Christianity.
I support patriarchy and my means of keeping the MRAs and manosphere types out is my insistence on unconditional Chivalry; no man can claim to be “with me” unless they are willing to acknowledge and accept their unconditional duty of Chivalry on behalf of women, on behalf of all women. Chivalry being the male duty to provide for and protect women. Christianity to maintain its moral integrity will have to find a way to keep Dalrock and men like Dalrock out. Just like Christianity needs to protect itself from the female narcissism of feminism it also needs to protect itself from the new emerging threat of male narcissism as found in the so called “Christian Manosphere.”
Dalrock wants the honor and the respectability of Christianity without actually obeying or submitting to Christian teachings or Christian authority. Dalrock wants Christianity to serve him rather than him humbly serving Christianity. In this way Dalrock is a cheater and a manipulator; claiming for himself something he has not earned.
My Previous Article criticizing Dalrock: Cowards, Chauvinists, and Dalrock
Dalrock’s Response to InsanityBytes: Insanity at the races